The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1887-10-27
THE OTHER SIDE.
Further Discussion of the Prohi.
bition Question From tho
People Of Dakota.
]. A. Sharp, Of Lincoln County, At1.
vwnces an Argument Favor
to the Proposition.

j. A. sharp, Of Lincoln County, Ad.
yxnces an Argument Favor
to the Proposition.
| FROM MIR. SHARP.
EDITOR ADvocATE:-In your last
paper l noticed an article on prOhi
bition. in which the writer tries to show
that prohibition is not bible doctrine.
In other words that the right to manu-
facture and sell intoxicating liquors
and to make drunkards is not contrary
to the word of God.
He begins by saying that the prohi-
bition movement is a church move
ment. Suppose it is. Is it any the
worse for that? If the christian peo-
pie of this country unite in movement
against the whisky traffic, is that any
thing against the move? Just the con-
trary. 1t is everything in favor of it.
Then he talks on while and finally
lands at Gen., 40: IL, and quotes one of
the sayings of Jacob: "His eyes shall be
red with Wine" That might be said Of
a good many men. For instance, when
man first enters a saloon "hlS eyes
shall be red with vine" When he goes
into gambling places and bad company
Ellis eyes shall be red with wine
When man undertakes to defend the
liquor traffic Ellis eyes shall be red with
I Ior,t ~ htno
those words of Jacob, yet he says that
is "a good starter" Then he turns over
to Deut. IA: 26, quotes part of verse
and then with smile of triumph turns
to the president of the W. c. Y. U. and
says at is not as good prohibition talk
as it might be, is it?' Encouraged by
that he turns to Judges 8: l3 and says
that wine cheereth God and man. Does
he mean by that passage to place God
on level with drinker of wine or
whisky? We know it cheers mems
confounded fools of themselves. Then
this great Colossus with one foot on
the bible and one on beer barrel, re-
fers to I'd Chron. 2: 10, when it speaks
of Solomon giving the servants 10000
baths of wine as though that was an ar
gument in favor of breweries, distiller-
les, saloons and drunkards. He says
we read in Psalms 10: that God makes
wine. Very well, what does he pro-
pose to do about it? Just this. Make
wine and beer and gin and ale and
whisky all over the country, put the
devil in it and give everybody all they
want of it.
Then this friend of the saloon quotes
from Prov. 81: 81.
When man is ready to perish one
will do almost anything to rescue him.
If wine will keep man from going to
the devil we will use it for that purpose.
We will turn it to the best account we
can. If we can't do any better we will
turn it into the street. Then your cor
respondent turns to Eccl. 8: Z: Drink
thy wine with merry heart" to prove
that all the world can drink all the in
toxicating liquor they want. Then
this temperance(D man jumps to Joel
l: 5, where the people are directed to
weep and howl when their supply of
wine is cut off. That is just what they
do. That is what your correspondent
is bowling about, because the prohi- [
bitionists threaten to cut off the toper's
supply of wine and beer and gin and
whisky, ETC., and the howl is going up
all over the country. Well, let them
howl-the supply Of wine and fire will
be cut off just the same. Then he calls
that bowling an anti-prohibition pro-
ceeding. What else would you call it?
Then this wonderful correspondent |
jumps over to Matt. 11:19 and Luke
I: "a, and takes it for granted that |
Christ is wine -bibber because he did
not say he was not. That is to say, if
man is accused Of doing wrong and
he doesn't say he has not done it, then
he is certainly guilty. Strange reason
ing that.
IIlCll tillo SitdU VI pIOlll-
bition asks most profound question:
"If Christ is God why did he not here
denounce the use of liquors?'' Why
don't your correspondent ask him?
How do we know why he didn't do
this or why he didn't do that?
Your correspondent says the bible
upholds the use Of strong drink. de-
ny it. 1t does not. Not one quotation
from scripture given above teaches any
such stuff. 1t is getting to be the
fashion nowadays for men to take pas
sages of scripture and make them mean
just what they don't mean. SO this
great smasher of prohibition begins his
article by saying that prohibition is
movement of christians. and ends by
saying that this movement of christians
is false and rOtten;" "built upon pre-
tense;;' is '.deceitful and insincere;" is
''abomnible doctrine;" "vile," "debauch-
es the public" etc. What a terrible set
of peopln they are, are they not?
The writer doesn't sign his name to
his article. While heehas the bible in
him to hunt up:
Lew 10: 10,
Nom. y: 8,
Judges 1874.
Psalms 15: 3.
Prov. 90:
Prov. %: 2O-29- -9O-3l-32.